Show simple item record

Trends in advanced imaging use for women undergoing breast cancer surgery

dc.contributor.authorBreslin, Tara M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBanerjee, Mousumien_US
dc.contributor.authorGust, Cathrynen_US
dc.contributor.authorBirkmeyer, Nancy J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-03-05T18:17:35Z
dc.date.available2014-05-01T14:28:10Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-03-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationBreslin, Tara M.; Banerjee, Mousumi; Gust, Cathryn; Birkmeyer, Nancy J. (2013). "Trends in advanced imaging use for women undergoing breast cancer surgery." Cancer 119(6): 1251-1256. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/96699>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/96699
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Evidence‐based guidelines recommend limited perioperative diagnostic imaging for new breast cancer diagnoses. For patients aged >65 years, conventional imaging use (mammography, plain radiographs, and ultrasound) has remained stable, whereas advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT], nuclear medicine scans [positron emission tomography/bone scans], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) use has increased. In this study, the authors evaluated traditional and advanced imaging use among younger patients (aged ≤65 years) undergoing breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Research Database from 2005 through 2008 was analyzed to evaluate the use of conventional and advanced diagnostic imaging associated with surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I through III invasive breast cancer. RESULTS: The study cohort included 52,202 women (13% with DCIS and 87% with stage I‐III breast cancer). The proportion of patients undergoing conventional imaging remained stable, whereas the average number of conventional imaging tests per patient increased from 4.21 tests in 2005 to 4.79 tests per patient in 2008 ( P < .0001). For advanced imaging, the proportion of women who underwent imaging increased from 48.8% in 2005 to 68.8% in 2008 ( P < .0001), as did the number of tests per patient (from 1.53 tests in 2005 to 1.98 tests in 2008; P < .0001). MRI examinations accounted for nearly all of the increase in advanced imaging. Patients who underwent MRI examinations received significantly more traditional imaging tests compared with to those who did not, indicating that these tests are additive and are not replacing traditional imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrate that the use of perioperative breast MRI has increased among women aged <65 years. Further study is indicated to determine whether the benefits of this procedure justify increased use. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society. The use of advanced imaging in women aged <65 years with breast cancer is increasing. Magnetic resonance imaging examinations accounts for nearly all of the increase in advanced imaging and is associated with increased use of traditional imaging, such as mammography and ultrasound.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherBreast Canceren_US
dc.subject.otherTechnologyen_US
dc.subject.otherPatterns of Careen_US
dc.subject.otherMagnetic Resonance Imagingen_US
dc.subject.otherImagingen_US
dc.titleTrends in advanced imaging use for women undergoing breast cancer surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother1500 East Medical Center Drive, 3217 Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5932en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23212691en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96699/1/27838_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.27838en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty‐year follow‐up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1233 ‐ 1241.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010‐2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 117 ‐ 128.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2011‐2012. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2011. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc‐030975.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999‐2006. JAMA. 2010; 303: 1625 ‐ 1631.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, Habermann EB, Tuttle TM. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16: 2697 ‐ 2704.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeMichele A, Putt M, Zhang Y, Glick JH, Norman S. Older age predicts a decline in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for patients with breast carcinoma: evidence from a tertiary care cohort of chemotherapy‐eligible patients. Cancer. 2003; 97: 2150 ‐ 2159.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLazovich D, Raab KK, Gurney JG, Chen H. Knowledge and preference for breast conservation therapy among women without breast cancer. Womens Health Issues. 2000; 10: 210 ‐ 216.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Breast Cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2010. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf. [Access date.]en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLord SJ, Lei W, Craft P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43: 1905 ‐ 1917.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorrow M. Magnetic resonance imaging in the breast cancer patient: curb your enthusiasm. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 352 ‐ 353.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAzzone V, Frank RG, Pakes JR, Earle CC, Hassett MJ. Behavioral health services for women who have breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 706 ‐ 712.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKorley FK, Pham JC, Kirsch TD. Use of advanced radiology during visits to US emergency departments for injury‐related conditions, 1998‐2007. JAMA. 2010; 304: 1465 ‐ 1471.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith‐Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 1491 ‐ 1502.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMitchell JM. Utilization trends for advanced imaging procedures: evidence from individuals with private insurance coverage in California. Med Care. 2008; 46: 460 ‐ 466.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75 ‐ 89.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoussami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59: 290 ‐ 302.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTurnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 375: 563 ‐ 571.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Society of Breast Surgeons. Position Statement on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Surgical Oncology. Columbia, MD: American Society of Breast Surgeons; 2010. Available at: http://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/PDF_Statements/MRI.pdf. [Access date.]en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarcotte‐Bloch C, Balu‐Maestro C, Chamorey E, et al. MRI for the size assessment of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a prospective study of 33 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 77: 462 ‐ 467.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaker LC, Atlas SW, Afendulis CC. Expanded use of imaging technology and the challenge of measuring value. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 1467 ‐ 1478.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGovernment Accounting Office. Medicare pt B Imaging Services: Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office; 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute. National Program of Cancer Registries: 1999‐2008 Incidence: WONDER [online database]. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2011. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/cancernpcr‐v2008.html. Accessed November 2, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHabermann EB, Abbott A, Parsons HM, Virnig BA, Al‐Refaie WB, Tuttle TM. Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 3437 ‐ 3441.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies 5 key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top 5 list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1715 ‐ 1724.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.